Talk:Rules of Acquisition
From Featured Nomination page The following was moved from Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles due to its more direct relevance to this article than to its qualifications for featured status: :Isn't a good portion of that article non-canon? Because it uses the book "Legends of the Ferengi." If i have been tought one thing its that this site is a stickler for canon and book sare bad for reference and a good portion of the article is written with non-canon info, maybe that info shoudl be delted also? I mean its non-canon so its bad. Bassing this on how Star Trek Star charts seems to be bad? - User:Kahless (signiture added by AJHalliwell) ::That's true. They should be moved to an apocryphal section, or removed all together, as it's most definitely not screen-canon. - AJHalliwell 05:37, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) :::Maybe i was to hasty because i noticed the book was co-authored by Ira Steven, who is the producer of star trek, so doesn't that qualify it as canon sinc he is in control of the star trek durring the time the book was written? User: Kahless (signiture added by AJHalliwell...again!) ::::Technical manuals are considered potentially canon, but are still counted as Apocrypha I believe. ("Trust-worthy" apocrypha maybe) This is still not screen-canon, and should be moved. - AJHalliwell 07:35, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) : I do believe that this book has been given special dispensation by M/A -- or at least is under dispute (See: Eelwasser). As for the content of this article, the primary/original content containing said information was written by the sites co-founder MinutiaeMan. If I recall correctly, there was also a conversation on Flare some time back that justified or helped justify the fact that the content is at least more acceptable than not, as it should be noted that it was written entirely by DS9's writer/executive producer Ira Steven Behr and staff writer Robert Hewitt Wolfe. Wolfe was involved with several Ferengi episodes and/or episodes featuring a Rule in such episodes as: , , , , and . Behr collaborated with Wolfe in many of the above mentioned episodes as well as: , and . Together they are, in many ways, responsible for creating the entire "modern" (DS9) Ferengi culture and therefore the book in question should be extended as much creedance as techical comments made by Rick Sternbach (a la tech manuals), mentioned in several locations throughout M/A. Either way, splitting it up into an apocrypha seems unnecessary as long as it is clearly cited, in this case. --Alan del Beccio 09:43, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) Rules 28 and 168 are identical with no explanation given. JDspeeder1 Yeah, I just noticed that too. Why is that? Tobyk777 23:03, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC) This discussion has rested for 1 1/2 years now, but seeing that we moved all the stuff derived solely from Sternbach's+Okuda's works (like starship classes and registries) to bg info, limiting canon strictly to on-screen info, I'd assume the same policy applies to the Rules derived only from Legends of the Ferengi. They could still form a large bg part, I assume, but removed from the main article body. Kennelly 13:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC) It could be moved from here to the book's page under a category like "Rules of Acquisition stated in the book" or someting along those lines.– Comtraya 01:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Legends of the Ferengi I don't have a copy of the Legends of the Ferengi (or Rules of Acquisition) books, but I'm premusing they were published during DS9's run, and so is there an example of a rule premiering in the book before appearing on screen? That would add something to the argument for regarding it as canon. Igotbit 16:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Page name? Is this page here by choice (is it useful/correct to have the "Ferengi" prefix?) or by necessity (because Rules of Acquisition is a disambiguation page)? If it is the latter, I think we should move this article to the simpler title and disambiguate the episode article with . This article should only stay here if the rules were actually called "Ferengi Rules ..." consistently. Opinions? -- Cid Highwind 21:30, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC) *I agree. (I did have a lot more here to say, but I then realized that I was repeating everything you said.) -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 21:45, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC) A contract is a contract The lines in the text says "is a contract" 3 times. It's an error: in the episode Body Parts, Brunt says "A contract is a contract" and Quark in the meantime says "is a contract" but only to show to him that he knows the rule, so this doesn't mean that the exact lines has 3 times "is a contract"! Moreover, "a contract is a contract is a contract" doesn't make any sense.... wake up, trekkers... *Yes it does. Alright not gramatically but the phrase: "A contract is a contract" is already a piece of tautological nonsense. The further repetition gives emphasis to the dilemma on Quark's part in the episode in question. My vote, leave it as it is Igotbit 17:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) *I think is an error take any sentence to the letter... Is more correct "a contract is a contract" than "a contract is a contract is a contract". Sid-Vicious 19:16, 11 August 2006 :*Earlier in the episode, Rom says the rule in its entirety: "A contract is a contract is a contract". Brunt later repeats it, but is interupted by Quark, who finishes the line. --From Andoria with Love 17:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Expand or Die Why is that mentioned twice?--//Mac Lover Talk \\ 20:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC) :As the note at the bottom of the article says, one episode called it rule #45, one called it #95. Our canon policy does not allow either to take precedence over the other, so both are here. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Whisper your way to success Why is this on here twice, with the same source cited? 08:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Just checked the script and it's only mentioned as 168. Imma remove it. 09:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC) You can't free a fish from water. This rule is listed as both #217 and #271, which is it? DaveS86 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Rule #2 removed An anon stated that The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition does not contain a second rule, which on this page was listed as "The best deal is the one that makes the most profit." That said, why are we using rules from a non-canon reference book at all? --From Andoria with Love 21:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC) :Good question. 3 more rules were removed this am: : #4: A woman wearing clothes is like a man in the kitchen. : #11: Even if it's free, you can always buy it cheaper. : #12: Anything worth selling is worth selling twice. :With the comment "removed rules wrongly attributed to The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition book". -- Sulfur 14:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Unofficial? Not real comfortable with a section being titled "Unofficial", with "unofficial" being partially defined as "un-numbered". This seems rather silly to me. It doesn't comfortably leave a place for A man is only worth the sum of his possessions, which is clearly portrayed as not just "official" in , but "the most important one", and one of the first 173. Should we maybe have a third section for "Unnumbered rules", instead of trying to non-canonically redefine what it means to be "official"? CzechOut ☎ | 13:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Legends of the Ferengi Rules Removed I moved all apocryphal rules to their own section. There are probably more referenced in novels and comics. – Cleanse 10:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Anything stolen is pure profit. Where did this rule go and where did it come from? I'm pretty sure it isn't canon, and I think I've seen it here in the past as #83, but a Google search turns up a lot of #14s and very the occasional #83. Does anyone have an idea? --Cinder 10:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Uncited information I removed the following information, which has been long uncited (and marked as such) on the page: * According to legend, Gint, the first Grand Nagus of the Ferengi Alliance, coined the first Rule, remembered as #162. (The legend further states that Gint numbered the Rule as the 162nd in order to create demand for the first 161. Some Federation cultural historians were dubious as to the validity of this claim. I don't remember anything in an episode about this...probably from one of the books.– Cleanse talk 12:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC) The Noble Side of the Rules of Acquisition At least twice in DS9, Ferengi characters use the Rules of Acquisition to advise non-Ferengis on how to handle a political situation; both times the non-Ferengis take the advice to heart and achieve a better outcome than if they hadn't. In , Nog advises the Bajoran Varis to see her negotiations as an opportunity, to find out how both sides can get something out of the negotiations that they want, and a civil war is averted. In , Quark advises the Vulcan Sakonna (who considers the rules she's heard so far from Quark to be "Ferengi Philosophy") that the Federation settlers should stop the Maquis' plan to attack and should instead negotiate with the Cardassian settlers because now "Peace can be bought at a bargain price." Are there any more episodes where a Ferengi's discussion of a rule with a non-Ferengi has an effect? I personally think this article needs a subsection on this subject, though with a less loaded subtitle than "noble," of course. MultiplePOV 20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC) New note on rule #239 I've added some notes to this rule, and since it's probably nothing more than Quark's imagination trying to find a loophole out of "A contract is a contract is a contract," I'm not entirely sure how note-worthy it is. If anyone feels that such words are unnecessary, I suppose it might as well not be there, but it's been on my mind for a couple of days now... --MikeRS 09:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC) have sex with the boss Rule 113: "Always have sex with the boss." I thought only male Ferengi were allowed to make profit (and therefore be the boss of something) and that female Ferengi should not follow the rules of acquisition (therefore it is only applicable to men). Then rule 113 recommends that one male Ferengi should have sex with another male Ferengi. 00:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC) :You may have a point if we had a record of this 113th rule. Vince 00:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC) ::We do have a record of it. It's in the apocryphal Legends of the Ferengi. So, it's in the Apocrypha section of the article. --TribbleFurSuit 02:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC) :I realize that. I meant to imply a canon record of it. Isn't that the type of speculation that's shunned on this site? Vince 03:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC) ::Do you understand what Apocrypha sections are for? Nowhere is this 113th rule presented as a real canon rule, because it's not a real canon rule. What speculation are you talking about? It's in a licensed book, so, the Apocrypha section is the proper place for this verifiable (not speculative) info. I don't see where the speculation you're talking about is, and I don't see the need to "confirm" that 113th rule from canon sources. It's not going to happen because no such confirmation exists. --TribbleFurSuit 04:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC) :The speculation is the initial question asked by the unnamed user. Anytime I try to speculate on anything involving anything I am always told that MA "isn't the place for idle speculation." I was just trying to return the favor. Would you say that the initial question about male Ferengi's belongs on a talk page? My past experiences would indicate otherwise. Vince 04:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) ::I see. Well, MA articles are indeed not for speculation. An MA Talk: page can contain speculation if we're busy working out a compromise for article content. Sometimes this is warranted because something that one user is considering adding to the article might turn out to be supported or refuted by evidence that another user posesses. :: On the other hand, if someone isn't talking about an article's contents and is just musing speculatively on a Talk: page or asking questions there, then: (A) no verification or references are necessary, and (B) that's not what Talk: pages , nor is MA a discussion forum. So the thing to do in response isn't to make any point about canon references, but to ignore it or move it to the Memory Alpha:Reference Desk - I guess. Though there's disagreement about that too. --TribbleFurSuit 20:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Force of Nature The text says: "While a Rule was never heard in Star Trek: The Next Generation, "Force of Nature" mentioned that the Ferengi were debating changing one of the Rules." That is not correct. I've just seen the episode the verify it, and there is no mention of anything about a rule. Do I miss something, or can that statement be removed? 13:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC) :I don't remember that either. Removed. If there is a reference, it should be more explicit and placed in the body anyway.– Cleanse 00:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC) #117 in 3x14 or 3x13 there is another rule mentioned "you can't free a fish from water" --T1gerch3n 21:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC) :It's actually rule 217, which is from , and already on the page. ;-)– Cleanse 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Rule 103 Is the part of this rule ("with your lust for latinum") not spoken in the episode from the script? If so I would like to clarify the background note to state that.--31dot 18:28, July 28, 2010 (UTC) :Nup. http://www.st-minutiae.com/academy/literature329/427.txt If someone can track down where that last part comes from (I'm guessing Legends of the Ferengi), that could be added to the footnote. The main entry should only list what was said on-screen.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:33, July 29, 2010 (UTC) Rule 194 Rule 194 should be removed. I just watched "Whispers," and it was clear that Quark was making it up in an attempt to pump the replicant O'Brien for info about the Paradans. -Angry Future Romulan 14:48, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :If it's not a "real" rule, it should be moved down to the "Unofficial rules" table rather than removed from the page.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:22, September 3, 2010 (UTC) Done. -Angry Future Romulan 18:13, September 9, 2010 (UTC) ::We should not say that the rule was made up just because Quark used it to try to get information from the replicant O'Brien. He was just using a rule that fit his situation. We should assume that Quark was being truthful unless it was said that he was not truthful or other evidence it was not a rule per the Canon policy. 31dot 09:50, April 22, 2012 (UTC) 142 - Only Fools Sell Wholesale I removed the following rule from the "Unofficial Rules" section. As a citation, it said "See Rule 141". Rule 141 is from the non-canon book, Legends of the Ferengi. But Memory Beta doesn't list the alleged rule 142 from the book. If it is indeed also from the book, it can be placed in the "Apocrypha" section. * 142 - Only fools sell wholesale. – Cleanse ( talk | ) 03:50, September 23, 2010 (UTC) Possible Rule "Poisoning a customer is bad for business." When Quark said this to Damar, he said it with a such a straight-forward tone that it made me think it could potentially be one of the rules. Thoughts?- JustPhil 17:23, November 30, 2010 (UTC) ¿The REST of the Rules? ¿Where are the REST of the Rules? There’s a lot of skips in there. AJ REDDSON :These are all the rules revealed in canon.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 06:56, November 17, 2011 (UTC) Then we should bombard Armin SHIMERMAN with letters to get him to write the REST of the rules… But in the interim, ¿is there another source? (I’m working on a writing project for college comparing the Ferengi to real-world capitalism.) AJ REDDSON ::Armin Shimerman was not the one to create the rules. The apocryphal bit at the end contains the only other sources of rules out there. -- sulfur 18:13, November 17, 2011 (UTC)